1. Title, director and release year?
“A Civil Action,” Steve Zaillian, 1998
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
- price of a human life
- two-faces to personal injury law
- who’s responsible?
- pollution/contamination from factories
- leukemia
- inherent corruption of lawsuits
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
- issues with drinking water and related diseases
- the dangerous point that sometimes, it’s not obvious what’s causing the problem
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- the build up to the case; little things were coming together, slowly painting a picture
- Jan’s thorough narrative on the problems, processes, flaws, and odds of success about his profession
- how the people were torn between uncovering the truth and keeping their jobs
- the story of how the boy died (how the medical system wasn’t supportive of parents’ concerns)
- portrayal and emphasis on the dangers/concerns of drinking water (the scene in which one of the factory workers is staring at water being poured into his family’s cups and watching his children drinking the water)
- the camera is usually focused on water, whenever it is in the scene
- the financial struggles of the firm and how much they sacrifice
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
It seems that John Travolta’s character develops too quickly from apathetic to compassionate. Maybe more of a build up would have made his transformation more convincing.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
What is the right process to go about attacking this sort of case? What interested the director in doing such a film? Personal reasons?
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Because it is structured as a feature film, the audience could really be anyone as young as teenagers, only because anyone younger may not understand. The general public would probably enjoy it for its dramatic nature; however, those of us involved in environmental issues may respond more strongly to the processes and the outcome.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The lesson to take away from this is to be careful and know where your drinking water comes from. Be aware that things that are “normal” for you may in fact have some inherent dangers.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Though it may have taken away from the drama of the film, one way I could see it being more educational, would be to provide more explanation for the scientific research and evidence that was being gathered to prove the contamination of the soils and the waters of that area.
“A Civil Action,” Steve Zaillian, 1998
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
- price of a human life
- two-faces to personal injury law
- who’s responsible?
- pollution/contamination from factories
- leukemia
- inherent corruption of lawsuits
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
- issues with drinking water and related diseases
- the dangerous point that sometimes, it’s not obvious what’s causing the problem
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- the build up to the case; little things were coming together, slowly painting a picture
- Jan’s thorough narrative on the problems, processes, flaws, and odds of success about his profession
- how the people were torn between uncovering the truth and keeping their jobs
- the story of how the boy died (how the medical system wasn’t supportive of parents’ concerns)
- portrayal and emphasis on the dangers/concerns of drinking water (the scene in which one of the factory workers is staring at water being poured into his family’s cups and watching his children drinking the water)
- the camera is usually focused on water, whenever it is in the scene
- the financial struggles of the firm and how much they sacrifice
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
It seems that John Travolta’s character develops too quickly from apathetic to compassionate. Maybe more of a build up would have made his transformation more convincing.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
What is the right process to go about attacking this sort of case? What interested the director in doing such a film? Personal reasons?
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
Because it is structured as a feature film, the audience could really be anyone as young as teenagers, only because anyone younger may not understand. The general public would probably enjoy it for its dramatic nature; however, those of us involved in environmental issues may respond more strongly to the processes and the outcome.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
The lesson to take away from this is to be careful and know where your drinking water comes from. Be aware that things that are “normal” for you may in fact have some inherent dangers.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Though it may have taken away from the drama of the film, one way I could see it being more educational, would be to provide more explanation for the scientific research and evidence that was being gathered to prove the contamination of the soils and the waters of that area.